Yeah so wierd…
See also:
and
So, lets reflect a little on the status quo here:
- Defense (especially against vehicles) is far more effective than thought
- Air superiority is not to be had by either side, and even though the Bush School of Government guest insists it is more likely to be had on Ukraines side - It’s more likely to be had on the russian side (mass, even mass at the higher quality level).
- People (Military Forces) who could potentially follow through on a break through of the frontlines, until 2025 also are only available on the russian side (roughly a group of 200.000 that are not in the field right now and trained in russia currently)
- With the only disruptive strategy the US is aiming for being: Supply the Ukrainians with even more long range weapons (escalation would be tactical nukes, horray!) so in 2025 the Ukrainians can attack munition depots and command control points again - this time with better air support in Crimea and deep in Russia, to again try to cut off Crimea from all supply lines including food. Make a population of 2 Million starve, so they turn against Russia - that then cant retake Crimea, and has to retreat in shame and horror, thereby causing a regime change in russia, that works out in our favor.
- If russia can disrupt Anti-Air that fails.
- If russia can disrupt Air support, that fails.
- If the break through isn’t deep enough that fails. (Well that is if a famine after bombing the Kerch straight bridge is not enough for russia to falter…)
- The russian retreat after that is likely, so we give them that.
- If the russian response is not regime change, they simply will bomb Ukraines economy, and try again at a later date - thats a high priority problem to deal with - then?
- If the russian response is regime change and the right sector there gains power, we are more fucked.
- If russia escalates, we are fucked (tactical nukes), but russia wont escalate, because the US will retaliate, getting half of their attack forces shot down in the process, which results in a direct war?
Thats if the Ukraine offensive succeeds. For which right now they dont have:
The Air defenses, the Air superiority, the battle vehicles, the ammunition, or the manpower.
If the Ukraine offensive doesnt succeed:
- Russia gets pinned down and bled out for longer
- Russia has problems of sustaining the war in roughly six years.
- Germany as an economy will fall behind the US economy for roughly six years
- Germany will pay twice as much as the US in per capita terms for the war -- like it does already
- The US will pay half as much as Germany, and inflate the costs away - thanks world currency, which brings the relative US cost down to about 12% per capita (if germany pays 100 arbitrarily chosen points (military and financial help)).
- The outcome will be roughly the same as today - probably with a few more hundreds of thousands of people being killed, with about another 100+ billion spent on US military equipment (their manufacturers gear up, but not to produce artillery shells, but more modern equipment, which they can cross sale to other parts of the world).
- US gets modernized in terms of military stock - for less than the price of that modernization, because the Ukraine will pay with credit for the old US stuff. Which EU countries will give guarantees for (refinancing is in place already).
- US becomes so much more economically competitive than Europe, that the Braindrain from Europe increases for the duration of - six years?
- The regime change play is still an option, because russia gets weakened, and could fail to sustain the war, in about 6 years. (Plus, minus.)
- Ukraine is still fucked in six years, because of the demographic decline. (Mothers with children who grew up in european countries dont return, because their children start careers in more affluent countries in Europe.)
- Another 400.000 people die or are incapacitated. (Thats for the 2025 counter offensive scenario, there also is the 2027 one… But the rate of people dying should slow down over time, as russias military production cant keep up with the current rate of attrition.)
- Europe has invested in their defensive sector, but with the war with russia in the back of their mind, so they mass produced cheaper goods (artillery shells) which Ukraine needs right now, while the US produced the newer stuff “preparing against a chinese attack” while getting rid of their older stuff which the Ukraine can already use…
- The US can sell that as a “boost to their economy”, because more jobs created in the defense sector, which is about the worst sector to invest in if you aim at job creation (low return rate on jobs created).
And here is the scenario, where Europe mitigates that trend: Europe freezes the conflict as soon as it sees it can outproduce russia on a level that would threaten defeat (which is lower than the level of production Russia has to venture into to plan attacks). All of this ends.
But you cant because of.… Morals?
Because you take the opportunity away from Ukraine to win decisively.
For which again - air defense is a critical part of, where Kuleba currently (last video) asks for 7 Patriot batteries, so they can sustain their munition production in country. And 25 Patriots by the end of the deciding period, firing 6 million missiles against 60.000 USD drones all day long - for another two or four years. While having problems recruiting.
And after that, they subsequently solve the “Air superiority needed” issue creatively (by switching on AI which removes all of russias drones in the field - its that level of innovation that we depend on here).
And then in a targeted strike, just like last time, manages to overcome all russian defense lines, and then cut off crimea, destroy the Kerch bridge, and drive the last russian out of Ukraine through negotiations.
Europe is in. Right? Europe loves this plan!
I cant see, at all why my generation with not enough voting power to change the trajectory that this country of boomer Thought Leaders who are overly invested, in terms of Foreign Direct Investments, in US assets (click) would do anything different than to believe in the possibility of a Ukraine victory. Be it in 2025, or 2027.
Who cares about relative development of GDP right? We are saving the climate here! Right?
The weird thing is - people aiding Ukraine have far more hesitation - in helping Ukraine.…
